Sex

The Argument Against Affirmative Consent Laws Gets Voxjacked

|

Kiss
Thomas Hawk / Foter

Two days ago, Ezra Klein, the editor of Vox.com, penned what may be the most repulsive article yet on the subject of affirmative consent laws. Klein's argument in a nutshell: yes, these laws are overbroad and will probably result in innocent men being expelled from college over ambiguous charges. Which is good, because the college rape crisis is so terrible and the need to change the norms of sexual behavior is so urgent that this requires a brutal and ugly response. Or, as Joe Stalin was fond of saying, "When you chop wood, chips must fly." That's the Russian equivalent of "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."

Toward the end, Klein writes:

Then there's the true nightmare scenario: completely false accusations of rape by someone who did offer consent, but now wants to take it back. I don't want to say these kinds of false accusations never happen, because they do happen, and they're awful. But they happen very, very rarely.

I only just found out, from this column by James Taranto, that the link in this passage goes to my recent piece on Slate XX.

The whole point of which was to rebut the idea that false accusations of rape are so infinitesimally rare that they needn't be a serious factor in deciding whether laws dealing with sexual assault are unfair to the accused.

I repeat.

I wrote a piece (extensively fact-checked, I might add) arguing that wrongful accusations of rape (either deliberately false or based on alcohol-impaired memory and mixed signals) are not quite as rare as anti-rape activists claim, and that we need to stop using their alleged rarity to justify undermining the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases.

And Ezra Klein cites this very piece in an article that justifies, pretty much, throwing the presumption of innocence out the window.

Is there a word for having one's writing hijacked to support (in an egregiously misleading way) the very point you are arguing against?

I suggest "voxjacking."

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: John Stossel on the Constitution, Ebola Blame, Iraq WMDs, Hong Kong Violence, Bad Polls for Everyone, and our Weekly Enemy of Freedom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m guessing Klein would be the kind of sheriff that hangs an innocent person to placate a lynch mob.

    1. At least Pontius Pilate had a guilty conscience.

    2. You mean like Reason has been advocating with Darren Wilson?

      1. I don’t think Reason has been advocating that.

      2. Please show me the articles where they’ve advocated a lynch mob.

        1. You’re wasting your time with this guy.

          Single-issue Ferguson troll…rolled in here with all of the other “cops are never wrong” trash. Never a good idea to feed the trolls by acknowledging their existence.

  2. I’m pretty sure voxjacking is what Klein does after he closes his office door.

    1. Ezra Klein is a fetus who should have been aborted and still should be.

  3. Luddites like Klein are headed for extinction. They simply to not possess the intelligence to survive long term. No woman with desirable genes would ever even consider breeding with such a pussy.

      1. She’s not bad looking, compared to him.

        Just wait until she uses some social justice to take half of his stuff. Let’s see how that works out. IOW, I think if she procreates, it won’t be with him, it will just be with half his stuff helping out.

    1. He’s married apparently.

      1. So are a lot of other damn fools.

    2. There are many words for Ezra Klein, but honestly, I’m not sure that “luddite” is one of them.

      1. How about vaginal tear?

      2. Passive aggressive beta male with a superiority complex

    3. Klein is probably doing a lot better than you in every respect that natural and sexual selection care about. He’s not stupid, not by a longshot.

      1. Life is not fair.

      2. He’s not stupid, not by a longshot.

        [[Citation Needed]]

        1. Some of his arguments are very clever. Based on fallacies, often, but that’s clever in itself — we call them fallacies because people think they’re true.

          1. He certainly has a measure of low cunning. I don’t think that necessarily makes him intelligent.

          2. Clever? Possibly

            Intelligent? On occasion

            Wise? Not even close

          3. IOW, he’s intelligent but lacking common sense.

      3. Anyone who can’t understand 200 year old written English is stupid.

      4. Klien has not reproduced. This is the only thing that natural and sexual selection ‘cares’ about.

  4. “The whole point of which was to rebut the idea that false accusations of rape are so infinitesimally rare that they needn’t be a serious factor in deciding whether laws dealing with sexual assault are unfair to the accused.”

    Does that actually matter? The principle behind presumption of innocence is that each accused person is an individual with rights. When you start bringing in statistics such as this, you treating people by their classification rather than as unique persons.

    1. /\This. EVERYONE is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Our rights have 100 percent validity, not some lower number based on expediency.

    2. This of the argument of the technocrat. There are no “natural rights” that everyone has that cannot be taken away.

      Instead, there are statistics which supposedly show that such-and-such policy will have negligible unintended consequences. The 100 or so people screwed over by the system are a small price to pay for a nice orderly society.

      1. You can’t have a nice, orderly society when the government can take away you rights at will. Imagine how much nicer and orderly society would be if there were just one political party. No more partisanship. Maybe we should just use, say, the IRS to bully out conservative voices in favor of liberals.

    3. It’s good to have arguments based on utilitarian concerns as well as natural rights. That way you can convince people who don’t believe in natural rights.

      1. Wouldnt it be better to first convince them of natural rights, if your arguments have the power to convince?

        1. That’s perhaps the long game, but sometimes when you’re, say, trying to prevent a horrifically shitty law from getting passed you have to meet them where they are. There’s plenty of time for discussing the physics of combustion and the practicalities of fire safety and the ethics of arson AFTER you’ve wrestled the matches away from the 3 year old.

          1. but sometimes when you’re, say, trying to prevent a horrifically shitty law from getting passed you have to meet them where they are.

            In a dark alley, shooting Krocodil?

        2. Natural rights is a principle, you either believe it or you don’t.

      2. Unfortunately that concedes a lot of ground. You are basically agreeing that it is OK for the accused to have less rights if abuse is rare, for an undefined value of what “rare” means.

  5. Ah, but you’re not a real woman, Cathy. If you were, you’d support whatever anti-male abuse of law the Matriarchy says you should.

    /sarcasm

  6. It’s kind of ironic that Klein is jewish, because his personality definitely was exactly the type that would have nabbed him a bunch of patches for the hitler youth.

    1. Yes, but the nazis were bad people and had bad intentions. Klein is a good person and has good intentions, thus the distinction.

    2. Eh, not all that ironic. Soros is Jewish, and is on record as stating that his time collaborating with the Nazis was the best period of his life.

    3. Yeah this guy is like the only Jewish liberal I know. Can you name others?

    4. There is speculation about the identity of one of Hitler’s grandfathers. It is possible that he would have qualified as jewish under Nazi racial ideas and laws.

  7. not quite as rare as anti-rape activists claim

    Don’t… don’t give them that. Everyone is anti-rape, except presumably rapists, and even rapists I imagine are anti-rape where their mothers are concerned. These are consent matrons, and their movement is only nominally anti-rape given the plethora of alternatives to boosting campus security or (ideally) instructing could-be victims in self-preservation that don’t involve robbing the accused of due-process protections.

    1. That’s not really fair. Anti-rape activists are engaging in activities against rape, which most people don’t do. Most people are in practice apathetic about rape.

      1. Oh, come on. Most people “in practice” are anti-rape: they don’t do it, they don’t support it, and they believe in stiff punishment for those who do.

        1. Two inactions and a belief. Sounds pretty apathetic to me.

          1. Go ahead. Name something that most people, or even a lot of people, are in favor of without being apathetic. Other than eating and breathing and shitting.

            1. Receiving “entitlements”?

              1. That’s the opposite sense of what he’s claiming. He says anti-rape is not anti-rape unless people are actively anti-rape. I probably should have said in favor of that requires work.

          2. And most people would (one way or the other) try to stop one if they saw it happening.

            What all do they need to do to “be” anti-rape”? Attend a demonstration? Wear a button? Sign a petition? Come on.

            1. What all do they need to do to “be” anti-rape”?

              Unthinkingly support any policy proposed by the people who claim to be very very concerned about the issue, apparently. A lot of it you can do without ever leaving Facebook or Tumblr.

            2. Vote for Bruce Braley, Kay Hagan, and Mark Udall. Next question.

            3. What all do they need to do to “be” anti-rape”? Attend a demonstration? Wear a button? Sign a petition? Come on.

              If what I’ve seen from Generation Tweet is accurate, I think it’s send a hashtagged statement while you’re waiting for your latte.

      2. I’d be less “apathetic,” as you claim most people are, if any of those “activities” included a call for personal responsibility: be aware of your surroundings, do not drink to a point where you don’t even know what’s going on or you can’t get to a safe place, do not abdicate control or protection of your body to others, stop dressing and acting like a bunch of $20 whores and maybe you won’t be treated like them…

        But to date, the “anti-rape activists” have virulently refused to even suggest that women have an obligation–yes, an obligation, borne of the changeless fact that they are generally smaller and less physically powerful than their would-be attackers–to be vigilant and responsible for themselves and the people and situations with which they get involved.

        1. This is true. The political character of the activists is revealed when they downplay common-sense things that would, in fact, reduce rape. They see individual responsibility as a distraction from the “true root causes”: sexism, racism, capitalism, etc., so acknowledging any individual responsibility undercuts their real goal.

          1. Teach men not to rape. It’s men’s responsibility to ensure the safety of women, you see. Men are responsible for women’s lower order needs so they can focus on higher order needs like social needs and self-actualization.

            1. I’m sorry, forgot to put /sarc. I realize that feminist arguments are so bad that you really need to explicitly state when you are satirizing them.

        2. Most rape is committed by acquaintances, so the advice about safe places and surroundings really isn’t going to help. There’s also no significant evidence linking style of dress to rape. Young guys don’t need a lot of help getting turned on, and while Orson Welles teleporting from 1891 would no doubt think all the women looked like whores, that’s simply the way women dress nowadays. If you don’t like it, I hear Iran has liberal immigration policies.

          I do agree that excessive drinking is a problem, and pretty much every authentic rape abater will caution against getting into such dangerous situations.

          Obligation? Fuck off, slaver. Nobody has an obligation to restrict their lives to appease their attackers.

          1. There’s a difference between “appeasing attackers” and old-fashioned common sense. Telling people to not leave their new convertible running with the keys in the ignition while they visit the downtown liquor store at midnight on Saturday is not “appeasement” of car thieves.

          2. And I think you mean “H.G. Wells.”

          3. Nobody has an obligation to restrict their lives to appease their attackers.

            That’s not entirely true. There are many things I don’t do which are solely in the service of my not becoming a victim.

            When my house was broken into for the second time in broad daylight, the cop stood on my front doorstep and said, “You might cut back some of your shrubs as they obscure the view from the street, an alarm system might be in order” etc.

            My response was not “fuck off, slaver, I’m not restricting my life to appease my burglars”

            We make changes to our lives every day to avoid becoming easy prey for attackers.

          4. A gazelle that doesn’t look out for cheetahs won’t live very long.

            You can teach men not to rape and threaten them with whatever punishments and deprivations of rights you want, but there are predators out there and that’s not going to change. Being careful about who you associate with, drinking responsibly, and yes, dressing in a manner that won’t make you a target for the true sociopaths out there, are way that you can protect yourself from predators.

          5. So thinking situational awareness is a useful tool in preventing yourself from being a victim makes one a slaver?

            And apathy is defined as “no direct activity”?

            Making all sane people slavers, and everyone apathetic about all crimes, all laws, all taxes, all… everything.

            That’s some sound logic there. You should go to work for the slavers, they’re always looking for ways to criminalize more activities and place all outsiders in the “evil” category.

            You should fit in quite well.

          6. “I do agree that excessive drinking is a problem, and pretty much every authentic rape abater will caution against getting into such dangerous situations.”

            No True Scotsman is about all that has going for it. In fact, it is the rare person who doesn’t greet the idea that other people’s daughters might want to moderate their alcohol intake in order to minimize the chance of rape with a hearty “f*ck you!”

            1. Oops. “Rare self-identifying feminist who doesn’t greet the idea that…”

      3. Anti-rape activists are engaging in activities against rape

        [citation needed]

      4. Anti-rape activists are engaging in activities against rape…

        Really? Then you have examples of these assholes actually standing between a rapist and victim? You have examples of them actually tracking down and punishing rapists? I suppose, absent their efforts, rape would be legal?

        No, they’re engaged in activities to expand the definition of rape and undermine the rights of the accused. That isn’t an activity against rape.

        1. Nicely summed up. Thank you.

  8. Not sure how much this matters, but thought I would mention it.

    As I was driving home from work this evening, I decided to get off the beltway because of a raging monsoon that was making traffic a total nightmare.

    So I went the back way and when I was going through Ellicott City(famous home of the mum of Edward Snowden), I spotted a lot of blue and white signs by the roadside with slogans like ‘Vote Libertarian’ and ‘Why Vote Libertarian? Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative’. So that was a first here. I’m a registered libertarian here in MD along with the others, not sure which of the other 2 put those signs out.

  9. I’ve seen other proggies do this – point to evidence (or an article) diametrically opposing their point as though it supports it. I’m guessing it has something to do with their immunity to cognitive dissonance.

    1. I think they mostly don’t read the material they refer to, and don’t expect their respondents do, either. In Klein’s case, I expect it’s looming deadlines wedded to a profound contempt for his readers.

      1. And profound ignorance tempered with arrogance and laziness

      2. This.
        I often see anti-GMO types claim that Canada banned rBGH in milk production because of cancer concerns, and then link to a Health Canada report which explicitly states that those concerns are “biologically implausible”.

        Canada actually banned it because supposedly kit causes an increased rate of mastitis in cows. That and because of luddites.

      3. Well, to be fair, I generally share Klein’s contempt for his readers.

    2. Sometimes this is done intentionally to “rebut by citation”. This happens in academia A LOT.

      Now Ezra Klein will add an “update” to his post saying that Cathy Young wrote a response at “right wing libertarian site Reason” (a link no one at Vox will follow) about false accusations being not nonexistent. He will then point to the fact that yes, he is aware of that, and in fact cited her work — making her look like an oblivious bozo in the eyes of his readers. Which are the only eyes he gives a shit about.

      1. LOL. While scanning the comments I actually misread yours as saying that Klein HAD added such an update and went looking for it.

        I guess that was Ezra Klein-level reading comprehension on my part.

    3. We’ve seen Palin’s Buttplug do that a number of times here. At least 8% of the time.

    4. Yeah, that’s definitely something progressives do. The right is all sweetness, light, and evidence-based thinking.

      FFS.

  10. There’s no need for exemptions from these sexual behavior laws for rare special instances in which an innocent person is victimized. After all, when a woman doesn’t consent, her body shuts the whole process down.

    1. Exactly

      1. I mean, doesn’t Klein even realize he’s using the same logic as anti-abortionists who say “No, not even in cases of rape, because so few rape victims get pregnant”?

    2. you’re talking about rape-rape, right? Like, legitimate rape?

  11. Klein really is the worst. We make fun of Yhlesias at least has the excuse of having Asbergers. Klein doesn’t even have that. He is just an evil piece of shit.

    1. Yglesias has Aspergers?

      I suppose that explains the occasional glimmers of libertarianism he exposes.

      Come to the dark side, Matt!!!

      1. He never admits it. But have you seen him? No fucking way is that guy normal on any scale.

        And please don’t encourage him to become libertarian.

    2. EK is far more evil than MY. MY can see things like “price gouging” for what they really are. EK never has such insights. Klein is a knee jerk progressive apologist with a higher than average vocabulary and a massive ego.

    3. Ezra Klein had been getting better on foreign policy and executive overreach recently… he was even criticizing Obama.

      1. Look, Klein isn’t unbiased or non-partisan by a long shot. He’s just above it all. Reminds me of the OJ jurors. Smarter than the prosecution, smarter than the defense, smarter than the case itself!

      2. he was even criticizing Obama.

        In 2014 he abandons the lame duck president all in time to switch to supporting Hilary. Give me a fucking break.

  12. Next Week from Ezra Klein:

    When Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson it was an exceedingly rare shooting by a police officer towards an innocent black teenager. Its not to say it wasn’t a tragedy, but these things are very rare. It must be put in the context of preventing crime by black teenage males, this shooting is preventing crime.

    1. ***THREAD WINNER***

    2. Check and, I believe, mate.

    3. This is pretty much the best comment ever.

      It might have actually won the internets.

  13. You can’t expect a busy guy like Ezra to actually read the stuff he’s citing to support whatever argument he’s pushing. The man is revolutionizing journalism, people; that eats up a lot of hours in the day. We should all just be thankful he still deigns to offer us his valuable insights and opinions. Who cares if they don’t really jibe with the facts?

  14. I suggest “voxjacking.”

    Ezra Klein is an insipid sliver of shit… but does shit deserve a noble reference?

    Maybe voxjacking is me stroking my cock off to Ezra Klein strung-up between some Utah horse thieves. I just fucked a sweet Utah whore in 1797. I’ve slept soundly after a sweet cum bath on her pioneer lips… But, I’ve run cattle for goddamn months and I’m not done blowing testosterone. Time for a two bottles of sweet bourbon starting right after ham’n eggs. Getting fucked up in the saloon and I hear about a real loser called Ezra Klein headin’ into town. Poster shows he fucks anything that moves and then some. Five hundred bucks on his head.

    1. Fuckin’ bitch is gonna die… and I’ll make a decent months wage… in 1797.

    2. There were white people in Utah in 1797?

      1. Trappers, bitch. Trappers.

    3. Voxxing …. inspired by doxxing.

  15. If the 1 in 5 stat is accurate, that means the risk of sexual assault in college is about the same as in a maximum security prison.

    If the proponents of this law really believed this, they would instead be trying to shut down co-ed colleges.

    Care to guess why they aren’t doing that?

    1. Also, anyone who uses the phrase “cold spike of fear” and is not a James Bond villain deserves to be laughed out of existence.

      1. Who cares about existence when one’s ass is floating on myriad found chemicals… really… oh, look =, Derpy derp is fuckin’ ridin’ a fuckin 4-wheeled airbus into the laser zone…. super fukin funny derpy slosh fuck

    2. Maybe colleges should study techniques used by prisons to keep the rape rate that low.

    3. What I don’t get is why no one is upset that statistic is accurate in prison.

      Why are we okay with prisoners being raped?

      1. Why are we okay with prisoners being raped?

        Wrong site baby…. we joke…

        BUT we CAre….

        No woman or bro or jailed should be subjek to rape…

        Forgive em me…I’m hammerd…

        We can an should be free to experess….
        BUT rape is brutal and wrong…. jokes help us cope.

        I’m out…

        1. Damn player, you just went from agile cyborg to faded robot.

        2. Man your mom is gonna be pissed tomorrow.

      2. Some of the SJWs have started to care once they heard faggots were getting raped.

      3. Because our society is filled with arrogant sociopaths.

    4. Because they know the numbers are bullshit, know that everyone else knows the numbers are bullshit, and just hope no one is so gauche as to notice that they’re bullshit?

      Pretty much like any other mob?

    5. 1 in 5 women in college are victims of rape. Maybe women should avoid college?

      1. But government is giving women loans to make it easier to get raped. Partly because they are making easier for future rapists to get school loans.

        If government would just give student loans to women only this whole rape problem would go away.

  16. I suggest “voxjacking.”

    I suggest “intellectual dishonesty.”

    – am I missing something?

    1. Yes, an awesome new Scrabble word.

  17. You write for Slate, what do you expect? Talk about “hypocrisy.”

    1. Yeah, because taking the opportunity to write for a publication whose audience doesn’t generally agree with you is never productive.

  18. Luddites like Klein are headed for extinction. They simply to not possess the intelligence to survive long term. No woman with desirable genes would ever even consider breeding with such a pussy.

    Since when has intelligence been selected for?

      1. That was a while ago.

        1. Looks what’s happening to the Jews now with their 57% intermarriage rate and sub-replacement fertility. Only in Israel is the race growing.

          1. What about people who convert?

  19. “Ezra Klein, the editor of Vox.com, penned what may be the most repulsive article yet on the subject of affirmative consent laws.”

    Whoa! And this is from someone called a “Rape-Apologist, Professional female misogynist and sister-punisher” etc. by the Marcotte crew. I may actually go read that now.

  20. I don’t see why so many of you hate Ann Coulter when she can write a headline like this: We’ll Tell You How Dangerous Ebola Is After The Election. Ha!

    1. “Artisanal foodies hardest hit”

      I’m can’t stop laughing. I can’t stop.

  21. You may as well try rebutting the WBC. The true believers don’t give a shit, and all you do by protesting is give them more attention than they deserve.

  22. A Cathy Young article misunderstood or misconstrued? Impossible.

  23. It’s high time we quit soft pedaling the nature of the left’s attitude about the Constitution and the presumption of innocence. These folks are the gestapo and the Stasi all rolled into one and we need to tell them to go straight to hell.

    1. And yet, unlike in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’ Soviet Union, I can travel from one end of the U.S. to the other without stopping or showing papers (mostly).

  24. There is a general term for Klein’s writing : Klein Boggle

    http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/?p=916

  25. Is it possible Klein decided to risk the bad press by writing what perhaps he meant as a humor piece which actually quoted Stalin in the context of politics in a positive light?

    I’d imagine a pre-written, pre-scheduled for publication explanation of the piece as an example of the kind of kooky support the craziness today’s feminists want to see on college campuses embodies. But no such thing has been released.

    Some people can end an entire career with a misplaced word. Some, a sentence. Others, an article. This dude’s was an article, his swan song sung, in praise of Stalin-esque moral relativity, no less: Crack those eggs, so long as the chicks who would’ve been hatched from them are male collegiates.

  26. And now, in addition to intentionally false allegations, we have a brand new category of what I call “unintentionally false accusations,” where a woman reports being raped after having been brainwashed into believing things like, if she drank, had sex, and regrets it, she was raped. That’s the case with the neuroscientist, below.
    .
    A columnist friend brought this to my attention. She asked me to read through Michelle Acciavatti’s account of her “rape” because she, the columnist, couldn’t find the act, or the actions that would let us conclude the act had occurred.

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/a…..nsibility/

  27. And if it needed mention, Klein barfs the phony “1 in 5” stat that conflated rape with sexual assault, which included catcalling, like a good little puppy:

    “A culture where one-in-five women is assaulted isn’t going to be dislodged with a gentle nudge.”

    FFS. That was his close. There’s literally no problem. Sexual assault like all violent crime has been in steady decline since 1992. On half of the most dangerous campuses in the US zero rapes were reported in any given year from 2008 to 2011. Even most proponents of AC don’t believe a word of the statistics–so what is accomplished by this? What can the motive possibly be?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.